Just despair - HOW do some women just not get it!

It just tells you % of prisoners. You’ve been ascribing more meaning to it than it can show, even if it were accurate.

Yes, that's what I've been saying. It tells you the percentage of sex offenders among trans-identified prisoners. You have been denying this up until now, for some reason.

I haven't ascribed ANY meaning to it outside of this. Please read back over what I've written. I literally said there could be a number of reasons for the figure. You're the one who says it's meaningless. It seems you're the one struggling to understand.

3rd time @Onnabugeisha

Could you explain how you 'pretend to be a transwoman'? Isn't it by stating what gender you are that you are that gender? Or do you think there is any 'test' you can do to see if someone really is that gender?

It seems like you think there exists a kind of person who says they are a woman, but aren't. Could you break down please how this happens - what is a woman, and how would someone saying they identify as a woman not meet these criteria?

Please understand I am not playing your game. You like to send anyone you disagrees with you off on rabbit hunts. Yet you sit and spout and link stuff that doesn’t even support what you say. Why should I back up my claims when you don’t?

The MoJ can't count inmates who have not told prison staff they are transgender.

So men in the male estate then.

Nor does it count prisoners who have already been given a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).”

Again men, who could be in either male or female.

So if you don’t know how many prisoners are transgender, how can you say 80% of transgender inmates are male or that 99% of transgender sex offenders are male?

Of the male prisoners that have told prison staff they're transgender, 40 percent are sex offenders*

If there are more men who are trans but keeping it secret and are NOT sex offenders then that 40 percent would go down if they could be counted.

The opposite is happening though and MORE male sex offenders are identifying as trans themselves. A higher proportion than in the non trans male population. So either way it's a way of getting a transfer to the female estate.

You literally cannot calculate it with any reliability.

True but that's not what's being illustrated.

Its meaningless though. No relation to whether trans or nontrans are more likely to be convicted of a sex offence. It just tells you % of prisoners. You’ve been ascribing more meaning to it than it can show, even if it were accurate.

But it’s a % of a total number that the MoJ says cannot even be counted as the # of transgender prisoners is unknown.

So it’s a % of a wild ass guess- but you say no reason not to believe it? Not to believe a % that someone has calculated based on a number the MoJ says does not exist?

Maybe you can provide that evidence to support these rather wild claims.

Because I suspect that these claims are also quite false, misrepresentations of the truth, or maybe they are true and I missed it.

Please back up these claims.

I didn't say trans people were more likely to be sex offenders. I pointed out that sex offenders claiming to be trans are over represented in the prison population.

These are one and the same. Just written in different ways, over-representation= more likely. And you can’t tell they are over-represented with the figures you presumably quoted from somewhere. They’re the wrong data to deduct that.

Your previous example of female murderers demonstrates that 10% of the female prison population were convicted of murder. I did not conclude that 10% of all females were murderers. The problem seems to lie in what you assume I think the figures mean.

I suspect that many are sexual predators appropriating a trans identity to use gender distress as a mitigating factor at their trials in the hope of a more lenient sentence or they hope to be housed in the female prison estate. One can only speculate why a sexual predator might find that option appealing.

Many is it? I suppose I should be grateful you don’t think it’s all. It’s eeerily similar to the “many economic migrants appropriate a refugee identity to use asylum seeking as a mitigating factor at the border in the hope of free housing and benefits. One can only speculate as to why an economic migrant might find that appealing” ….how much of your view is based on bias? Think about it.

Are you suggesting that there are no sexual predators in the trans community or that some people claiming asylum are not actually economic migrants? Don't we owe to people with gender dysphoria and asylum seekers to make sure that we don't damage their claims by creating loopholes which can be exploited by less honest people.

Your absurd suggestion that the only valid stats would consider sex offenders per capita of the population assumes that every sex offender is detected and convicted or that sex offenders would willingly admit their crimes for the purposes of accurate data collection.

No, doing a per capita calculation does not assume every criminal is detected and convicted. I don’t think you even understand what a per capita calculation is as otherwise you would not have written such nonsense.

It’s standard procedure, it’s how you tell whether there is any over-representation or not. You literally cannot deduct or calculate over-representation by comparing the same statistic between disparate groups.

See my response to your first point. I have quoted prison statistics, sex offenders claiming a trans identity are over represented in the prison population, you don't seem to think that means anything but haven't explained why sex offenders claiming a trans identity are represented at 3× the rate of male sex offenders in prison and approx 30× the rate of female sex offenders in prison. And you haven't explained why you think trans people would be less likely to commit sexual offences.

Who would you like to use for your per capita calculation? Sex (male or female), transpeople with a GRC, transpeople without a GRC? The only way the figures don't harm the self ID cause is if we use the population of people who self ID to do the calculation and we have no idea about the size of that population. How do you propose to obtain meaningful date?

because mumsnet gets a cut from amazon, if someone here buys something from them

Because women's groups have in the past gone through and manually sorted through case data that they can find.

You are the one who is trying to twist all this. The numbers are not that big and data can be collated following court cases and then observations made.

Can't tell which sex have a cervix and can't do basic numeracy. I give you tras.

That is a cop out and I think any readers reading along will see it as such.

Up until 31/12/2019 there were 122 females in prison having committed sex offences according to the statistics readily available on line. ( I have not analyses whether that includes prostitution offences by the way) [from Table 1.2b: Prison population under an immediate custodial sentence by offence group, age group and sex]

There was known to be 76 transitioned males in prison in the UK for sex offences. This is data collated by searches from women's groups etc.

By the way, that 122 female number, I have not gone and verified how many of those are even female and how many are males recorded as females. It is not actually necessary for a raw data comparison using common sense.

I don't believe that it takes any further observation unless it is extremely bad faith to ignore this data. It is very very clear to see using raw numbers of females in UK prisons for sexual offences rather than any % analysis about ratio of population etc.

All the twisting in the world cannot ignore that transitioned males do not commit sex offences at a rate any where near the general female population.

That is the important observation.

Transitioned males do not commit sex offences at a rate any where near the general female population.

Please explain why you would ignore the raw number comparison.

I can tell from the data that trans-identified prisoners are more likely to be convicted sex offenders than non-trans-identified prisoners. Because the data shows me exactly that. If you can't tell me WHY it doesn't show that and explain what it does show, then why should I believe you over the evidence of data I can see in front of me? You are hardly an unbiased or trustworthy source on this topic.

There can be many reasons why this figure is what it is. But I don't see any reason to not believe the figure itself.

Also why would an amazon link have a reference to MN in it?

Oh, of course, those cakes won't ice themselves!

Yes, the only way the figures are unclear is that males with a GRC are not being recorded. So the figures in the BBC article are quite likely to be skewed lower than actual figures.

Anyway, OP I too despair some women just do not get it! They really should teach basic statistics and how to spot bad science in secondary school.

Please at least buy this book for your DC
www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/000728487X

Im off, as it is obviously futile.

I would be interested in how you think we could measure anything what with your knowledge of prison stats.

What should we be recording against what?

Ok

i was talking about this

amp.theguardian.com/society/2022/feb/17/transgender-people-can-self-identify-in-scottish-census-confirms-judge

what were you talking about?

Yes.

The quote is referring to how propagandists manipulate people by misusing statistics or using the wrong data to peddle a narrative. Which you have fallen for because you thought those 40% vs 19% figures actually meant several things they cannot be used to show.

It was true, but it’s obviously offended someone so it’s been deleted. Inconvenient truths are often deleted.

Nice of certain posters to give a live demonstration of "not getting it".

@beastlyslumber
It tells us that there are more sex offenders claiming to be trans in prison.

No, it really doesn’t.

The quote is "there are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics." But if that's your argument, then why bother even getting into the stats at all? You've also been presented with data and you don't like that either.

I’m not referring to that. I am referring to your now deleted post accusing feminists of actively trying to prevent the collection of data about gender

that post was not true